Farrow v Habersberger

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Robert William McIntyre Farrow, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court. The respondent was David John Habersberger. The core of the dispute concerned the extent to which the applicant was protected from self-incrimination in civil proceedings, particularly in light of an investigation conducted by the respondent.

The applicant argued that the Full Court erred in three primary ways. Firstly, it failed to afford the applicant the protection established in *Hammond*, as interpreted in *Hamilton v Oades*. Secondly, the Full Court wrongly placed the onus on the applicant to demonstrate this protection, when it should have been on the respondent to prove its absence. Thirdly, in relation to civil proceedings, the Full Court overlooked the fact that the respondent's investigation involved an examination of the applicant, the results of which, along with any associated report, could potentially be tendered in the civil court as proof of facts.

The applicant's submissions relied heavily on the principles articulated in *Hamilton v Oades*, which discussed the risk of injustice to a witness compelled to answer questions that might incriminate them. This risk was described as a "real and appreciable danger of conviction" and a potential "real interference in the administration of criminal justice." The applicant contended that an examination conducted under the relevant section, while criminal charges were pending, exposed the witness to these risks, and that the Full Court failed to adequately consider this in its decision.